RealGM

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

That is a valid point, and not one I ignored although it may seem that way. His rebounding and ability to block shots will transfer to a reasonable role player level in the NBA ,maybe more, but there is no way his numbers across the board are as gaudy. His stock has been pumped up due to his relentless style of play more than anything.
How long can his knees sustain that style of play on a 82 games + season 4 maybe 5 years? he's already 22. He makes sense for a team who's contending window is small, and so I am reluctant to think lottery teams will take him there unless no other prospects fit their needs etc. I could see late lottery making sense, and him outplaying half the prospects taken ahead of him his first few seasons but then dropping off significantly.

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

His play in the tournament against better opposition should have dispelled some fears that he was beating up on bad teams.

crows2 wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

His play in the tournament against better opposition should have dispelled some fears that he was beating up on bad teams.

It did , but it doesn't change the fact that his averages may not be so gaudy playing in a stronger conference all season, and we'll never know, because he played in a weak one. I like Clarke but he's 22 and his style of play is hard on the body and not somebody I would project to be as dominant against grown men.

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

How good was Damian Lillard's college conference? How about Stephen Curry's? Or CJ McCollum's? All were older players who beat up on weak competition. Guess that means none of them will be very good pros.

Stillwater wrote:It did , but it doesn't change the fact that his averages may not be so gaudy playing in a stronger conference all season, and we'll never know, because he played in a weak one.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that his numbers would be just as gaudy in a top conference. But look at someone like Cam Reddish who only averaged 13 ppg but is still projected Top 5. Or projected lotto pick Hayes averaging 10 ppg at Texas.

Stillwater wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

That is a valid point, and not one I ignored although it may seem that way. His rebounding and ability to block shots will transfer to a reasonable role player level in the NBA ,maybe more, but there is no way his numbers across the board are as gaudy. His stock has been pumped up due to his relentless style of play more than anything.
How long can his knees sustain that style of play on a 82 games + season 4 maybe 5 years? he's already 22. He makes sense for a team who's contending window is small, and so I am reluctant to think lottery teams will take him there unless no other prospects fit their needs etc. I could see late lottery making sense, and him outplaying half the prospects taken ahead of him his first few seasons but then dropping off significantly.

vs. Duke: 17/5/1/6
vs. Arizona: 18/4/2/4
vs. Washington: 10/11/1/5
vs. Tennessee: 21/9/1/2
vs. UNC: 15/3/2/3/3
in tourney: 23/11/3/4 (against Baylor, Florida St., Texas Tech)

dude was pretty much just as productive against top programs

Klomp wrote:

Stillwater wrote:It did , but it doesn't change the fact that his averages may not be so gaudy playing in a stronger conference all season, and we'll never know, because he played in a weak one.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that his numbers would be just as gaudy in a top conference. But look at someone like Cam Reddish who only averaged 13 ppg but is still projected Top 5. Or projected lotto pick Hayes averaging 10 ppg at Texas.

Clarke's age and style of play have more to do with my opinion about his stock. His impact will be solid out of the gate, but no where near as impressive as in college,regardless of conference even if he had played against tougher opponents every game.
He needs to go to a playoff team that can utilize his skill early,because with that energy level he won't last 5 yrs at the same level on a 82+ game schedule

Klomp wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

How good was Damian Lillard's college conference? How about Stephen Curry's? Or CJ McCollum's? All were older players who beat up on weak competition. Guess that means none of them will be very good pros.

all guards that don't get banged up like a paint player 82 + games a season. He is 22 already and his style of play is brutal on him.

Klomp wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Clarke was arguably the most impactfull non elite conference junior in the country...let that sink in some.
I like his game transferring and I think he will have a long career, but lets not get ahead of ourselves folks.

His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

How good was Damian Lillard's college conference? How about Stephen Curry's? Or CJ McCollum's? All were older players who beat up on weak competition. Guess that means none of them will be very good pros.

I’m not knocking Clarke with my comment on Gonzaga, I’m knocking Gonzaga. I’m a big fan of Clarke. Gonzaga finds ways to trick the system, really shady program.

doordoor123 wrote:

Klomp wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:
His conference also sucks. It’s ridiculous that Gonzaga is in such a terrible conference and they easily win their way to the tournament every year because of it.

How good was Damian Lillard's college conference? How about Stephen Curry's? Or CJ McCollum's? All were older players who beat up on weak competition. Guess that means none of them will be very good pros.

I’m not knocking Clarke with my comment on Gonzaga, I’m knocking Gonzaga. I’m a big fan of Clarke. Gonzaga finds ways to trick the system, really shady program.

Wait, what?

krii wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Klomp wrote:How good was Damian Lillard's college conference? How about Stephen Curry's? Or CJ McCollum's? All were older players who beat up on weak competition. Guess that means none of them will be very good pros.

I’m not knocking Clarke with my comment on Gonzaga, I’m knocking Gonzaga. I’m a big fan of Clarke. Gonzaga finds ways to trick the system, really shady program.

Wait, what?

so far he’s avoided explaining these comments about Gonzaga being dirty or shady.

Again, please explain

Coeur wrote:

krii wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:
I’m not knocking Clarke with my comment on Gonzaga, I’m knocking Gonzaga. I’m a big fan of Clarke. Gonzaga finds ways to trick the system, really shady program.

Wait, what?

so far he’s avoided explaining these comments about Gonzaga being dirty or shady.

Again, please explain

Because I have personal issues with the program, but I don’t want to create a controversy. I just want to say I’m not a fan.

doordoor123 wrote:

Coeur wrote:

krii wrote:Wait, what?

so far he’s avoided explaining these comments about Gonzaga being dirty or shady.

Again, please explain

Because I have personal issues with the program, but I don’t want to create a controversy. I just want to say I’m not a fan.

So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

The-Power wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

Coeur wrote:so far he’s avoided explaining these comments about Gonzaga being dirty or shady.

Again, please explain

Because I have personal issues with the program, but I don’t want to create a controversy. I just want to say I’m not a fan.

So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

People are making too much of Gonzaga's schedule. It was rated 75th in the nation of about 350 schools.

doordoor123 wrote:

The-Power wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:
Because I have personal issues with the program, but I don’t want to create a controversy. I just want to say I’m not a fan.

So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

you really should. I’ve never heard a negative word. But I’d sure like to know if we are being fooled.


You have no reason not to “back it up”

Coeur wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

The-Power wrote:So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

you really should. I’ve never heard a negative word. But I’d sure like to know if we are being fooled.


You have no reason not to “back it up”

Gonzaga like most high level programs has its share of kids who didn’t work out for whatever reason and transferred out. There are always going to be disgruntled ex players, family members, coaches etc who perceive they were screwed over by a “shady” program or coaches who didn’t give them the playing time they think they deserved or were “promised” or were recruited over. Proabably nothing more than that here.

doordoor123 wrote:

The-Power wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:
Because I have personal issues with the program, but I don’t want to create a controversy. I just want to say I’m not a fan.

So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

It's simple: if you're not willing to back it up, then don't start throwing shades randomly. As the saying suggests, put up or don't say anything at all. This here is just ridiculous.

The-Power wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:

The-Power wrote:So you feel like just throwing shades at the program all the time without backing it up? Cool.

I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

It's simple: if you're not willing to back it up, then don't start throwing shades randomly. As the saying suggests, put up or don't say anything at all. This here is just ridiculous.

I’m allowed to dislike a program for reasons I don’t want to disclose. I’m not just saying it randomly and I think you guys are blowing this up for no reason. I don’t care if other people like the program or not, I just personally don’t like it and think they’re shady. And I hope this is the last comment on the matter.

doordoor123 wrote:

The-Power wrote:

doordoor123 wrote:
I could back it up if I wanted to, but again I don’t want to create controversy.

It's simple: if you're not willing to back it up, then don't start throwing shades randomly. As the saying suggests, put up or don't say anything at all. This here is just ridiculous.

I’m allowed to dislike a program for reasons I don’t want to disclose. I’m not just saying it randomly and I think you guys are blowing this up for no reason. I don’t care if other people like the program or not, I just personally don’t like it and think they’re shady. And I hope this is the last comment on the matter.

It’s understandable why you’d want this conversation over. It has been super pathetic how you’ve went about it